People have been brainwashed to believe that socialism is evil...

IT is one thing to "share the hunt" when all of the able men are actively engaged in the hunt (including driving the beast into a kill zone) but
where just one hunter made the kill....along with the division of labor in cutting up and cooking the meat and the women making useful products from
the skin and bones AND another to feed a parasite. If you have a parasite in your body (ie, tapeworm) do you feed it or get rid of it? Society
(except perhaps for eugenicists) does not condone killing humans who are parasitic on the system but that doesnt mean that we have to support them
with welfare checks that can go for alcohol, tobacco, strip joints and junk food either.

I like the concept of Socialism but I've yet to see a population that thrives under the implementation of Socialism

You always have high achievers in any population. They will manage to take care of themselves and prosper under any government structure.

The vast portion of the population falls within the average. These people may or may not do well depending on the political structure of their
society. Most likely they will be OK. I do think that most of the population falls within normal limits and they can always use some incentive to work
and produce.

Then you have the slackers. They will find a way to goof off if at all possible. If society will take care of them, so be it. They can sit home and
play their xbox. This is the population that can cause the problems in a socialist society. How do you force people to work? If you have too many
people who choose not to work, socialism cannot succeed.

I was of course referring to able bodied adults in the about thoughts.

I think that the motivation for a socialistic society is two part; either you want everyone to support you or you want everyone to support someone
whom you feel needs to be supported either medically, financially, or both.

Yes, we have on obligation to make the lives of the disabled as comfortable as possible, but the idea that we have to provide them with the same
lifestyle as any other American that works for a living is just not true.

We should not feel obligated to provide more that basic survival to those who do not support themselves. If you are sick we should provide enough
medical attention to sustain life and keep you comfortable. If you are hungry we should provide essential low cost food, not the steaks, shrimp, and
lobster that my wife and I have seen people purchasing with their link cards.

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not cell phones, elective surgery, and 18 children.

The op has pointed out about the fact that the world has been brainwashed to think that socialism is a bad form of government and that it is not so
bad as what is believed to think.

While that may be true, the countries that he mentioned, are and were traditionally communist in nature and ideology. And before continuing, lets
look at what the accpeted definition of what is the difference in the different types of governments, and the examples that come around from such.

Communism: Communism came from the writings and ideals written by a man called Karl Marx. Under that form of government, the basis is that everyone
is equal, there is no classes, and that the government would control 100% of all of the country, to include the businesses, and the people. The
government would dictate where you live, what you can and can not do, what you can eat, and aquire from your work. You have just enough, as it was a
theory put forth by Marx, that held that the development of the suberabundance of material wealth lead to social downfall, and that everyone should be
equal. Lennin, took the ideal and added to it, to where it led to more of a worker participation, those who worked hard would be provided for and
those who were rich were evil and bad, and should be punished. Most of the countries that came to be communist, such as the USSR, China and Cuba, saw
the rise of and were under the yoke of such a government that progressively got more and more restrictive. The lose of businesses that came out often
ment that either the government closed them down or took them over directly.

Socialism: Is an economic system where the main parts of society is controlled by social ideas and the will of the majority of the people. Many
businesses that could be considered there for the good of the entire people would be taken over, while those that are minor or lesser would not be
touched, or even ignored. Here again ultimately it leads to where some there is a redistribution of wealth in its society, to where it tries to help
all of those in its citizens, ideally it is a good idea, but when it translates out it turns out to be a diseaster in the long run economically, as
many decisions are made by the government and not the individuals. Countries that have gone to socialism, would be more those that you see currently
in Europe, though many try to keep the distance from that term due to the history that is associated with a Socialism. The best example of such that
can be brought up where it was pure and straight forward would be Argentina, during the days of Peron.

Capitalism is not a form of government but an economic idea. But what many people tend to forget about such, is that with this system, there is
always a winner and a loser in that form of society. It means that someone is going to succeed in their endevors, that businesses are there to make a
profit, and that there will be losers, where a person will looses everything. There will be both rich and poor, and all inbetween. As with
everything there is an niche for all sorts of businesses, and like all aspects, it is straight forward competition in the business world.

And most democracies that many would speak of are in reality are republics, where there is a person who speaks for a group, rather than the individual
speaking on every issue. While one will find that such is either good or bad, the ideas behind such is often that the majority rules and the minority
have rights. Many of those countries have some social aspects to it, as to protect its citizens. But the problems are coming out that with larger
numbers of citizens, the amount is starting to over weigh the economies of many countries around the world.

Now as the op has pointed out, such is better than most demoncracies and capitalism, the points that are not brought out, is the mass murders that
countries such as Germany, USSR, China, Cuba had gone through during the initial set ups and running of those governments. Where those that spoke
against the government would ulitmately be silenced either by threat or by out right disappearing. Countries like Argentina, which was elected by a
democratic means to be socilaist, before Peron, had a beef industry that was on top of the world and a gold reserve that was the envy of the rest of
the world only to turn out to about bankrupt the country after the fall of Juan Peron, and those are the kinds of examples that are never talked about
or discussed. If you need another example they are still cleaning up the mess in Cambodia, post Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. No this is not
brainwashing, but a sanatization of the facts that come out and mass graves of people who do not lie. Nor do the economic states of many of the
European countries that are in trouble, which have strong socialistic ideas, do not lie either, as they are either failing or on the verge of
exploding from the turmoil of having to make changes to save themselves.

No system of government is perfect, there will always be problems but if it entails the outright killing of people who speak out against their
government, where people who work hard for what they own have it stolen from them cause it is deemed that they have too much, then perhaps it is not
such a good ideal either.

Ultimately what one could say is that most of the countries that have been or are of a socialist nature, were used as stepping stones by dictators to
take control of a country and start a brutal regiem.

Who cares about the vunerable in our societies. They haven't been involved in the hunt so they are not entitled to a share of the spoils.

I think it's great that utilities are privately owned and making boat loads of profit whilst the poor are struggling to pay for heating and are
suffering even more, year in year out.

I couldn't care less that we are ripped off by public transport providers, providing second class service at first class prices. As long as it is
making someone rich and the share prices are increasing that's all that matters.

If everyone was equal, what would they have to aspire to?

And that's the biggest lie we are continuously being fed. Because even the top earning executives will never have the same lifestyle as the people
who have a majority shareholding in the companies they work for.

The elite keep us believing their system is best and the majority of people keep buying it.

in my opinion, people haven't been brainwashed into thinking socialism is evil..

rather

People have been dumbed down to not understand what socialism is..they call tyrannical communism, socialism..without understanding that socialists
fought tooth and nail against communists.

But socialism isn't set in stone..its a sliding scale, and every country on earth uses a degree of socialism (outside of tribal areas where its a
every man for himself feel..parts of Africa and the like with no functioning government).

So ya. Its not a mind bending perception going on here...its a mild retardation that is gripping the western nations loudmouths..
Ironically, in a day when almost everyone is a few keystrokes away from facts, ignorance is peaking on simple definitions. I think that because the
internet is so easily accessable, people choose not to learn stuff...because its all right there anyhow should they need it (like a person that can't
do simple math because calculators are always in arms reach).

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
If everyone was equal, what would they have to aspire to?

A socio-capitalist society isn't meant to be limiting the size of ladder a person can climb, Its meant to spread a net so one can only fall so far
before caught.
Once you fall through a crack, its nearly impossible to climb back up. Society grows the more people are succeeding as a whole. Poor people don't
buy cool computers, which in turn profits the computer manufacturers, game makers, etc...
So everyone gains when someone is middle class...the rich especially. Its in everyone interest to bring, even artificially, the poor into a middle
class status.
Barbarian capitalism only hurts all but the tippy top..this ends up leading to corporatism, and offshoring, which will eventually lead the wealth of
the nation into the fingers of foreign interests.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
Op, your free to move to one of your socialist paradises any time, leave my country alone.

Nothing if free silly, nothing, everything comes with an associated cost, as it must be mined cultivated etc. People dont work for free.

How would giving people welfare for payless work ( known as slavery in most places) help anyone? What is the difference between joblow making barely
enough to live on, and working for free for barely enougb to live on? At least he might be able to make somthing happen if he is very smart with his
money, if ye has none, he has no hope of ever changing his life.

Communism will never work, or any idiotic lefty idea, as they all start from the most naive and ignorant world view possible, here watch I will show
you what I mean.

Very well put.
It is about giving people the same chance in life also in Denmark a cleaners son can go to the same school as a CEO son.
Here in the UK you can get the same treatment as anyone, It is about being fair and giving us all the same chances.
I just do not get people who claim they are good decent god loving people but refuse to put extra into a pot for the greater good.

Sadly, socialism is not the nirvana you're hoping it will be. People cannot be equal without losing freedoms. And people who celebrate freedoms cannot
also enjoy equality. It's impossible to have both. Thus, you see, there's no nirvana. There's no utopian society.

Socialism would put us all in a prison where equality is enforced. We would not understand true freedom. Over time we would probably come to hate the
concept of freedom. We would also lose our understanding of our own innate differences; our advantages and disadvantages. This means that the
individual potential of a person will not be realized. In this, we're imprisoned but unaware. And so long as we remain unaware, the enforcement of
utopian equality will continue. But this isn't nirvana. This is delusion. We've lied to ourselves and obscured a deeper truth about
ourselves.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
People have been dumbed down to not understand what socialism is..they call tyrannical communism, socialism..without understanding that socialists
fought tooth and nail against communists.

That pretty much sums most of the starred, anti-socialism posts I've seen yet in this thread.

Along with the same redundant stupid arguments like :
"People will never want to work"
Who says everyone's goals are individually minded, oh right, we've all be conditioned this way.

"People will never work in what they want or what they are good at"
Tell that to the poor that can't afford education and to those that work jobs they don't like that could be rearranged if people would stop thinking
only about profit and keeping jobs just for the fact of keeping jobs. We have to evolve beyond this.

"People won't have enough money."
Didn't you read the news? The 1% have 60% of the wealth that will never be redistributed. So don't point the finger on the poor and socialism for lack
of
(the fake ideology we based all our real working resources on when it's clearly not worth anything if there is no man power behind it)
money.

Socialism works when the taxed revenue isn't spent on defense. Honestly, capitalism doesn't work when that happens either. Conveniently, there's a
fraudulent bank system to borrow from and to launder money from illegal gun and drug trade.

A political system in of itself, is not evil. It is extremism that brings on the evil. Facism: Nazis, Communism: Mao and Stalin ....and yes
even Capitalism (Read Charles Dickens if you don't believe me)

Moderation, Checks and Balances, Compassion for it's citizens ...that is what makes a healthy society.

The Scandinavian countries are mostly socialist. We could learn something from them. On the other hand, how do you "enforce" socialism? That's
when things could get ugly and people's rights get trampled on.

No matter which direction you go, the people must be able to rise up and replace corrupted leaders when necessary. That's the key.

This is adorable. Look at all these people who have never lived under any kind of socialism (other than the ones they don't wanna think of as
socialism, such as Social Security and Public Education) talking about the evils of socialism and how it doesn't work. There are no purely socialist
countries, but Finland, Canada, Sweden, and Norway are doing just fine. Finland in particular. They're kicking our butts in Education, Standard of
Living, Freedom and everything else. Well...except for in being an over-aggressive war-monger who devotes the vast majority of it's resources toward
preparing to kill people.

Even though it's proven time after time that only a very small portion of a population will game the system, the lovely people in our nation would
rather let hundreds of thousands of people suffer than risk a few people cheating.

The most hilarious thing to me (and my mother says this all the time) is *assumes a shrill voice* "I'm not paying for OTHER people's health care!"
As if it's going to come directly out of her check when Nancy next door has a pap smear.

Extreme of each party is never going to be good, there is many ways to being infactuate with power. A blend of both is probably the way to go.

Imo, i like Canadian system, its about 65% Capitalism, 35% socialism.

Free health care, for those who need it, and subsidized education so everyone can get education, and afford tuition, not just the rich.

in my 25 yrs of age, i worked since i was 18, which i get taxed for the free healthcare, which i barely use, yet i know, someone who needed it most
but cannot afford is alive, who knows what changes he might bring it to the world, he might even live and work to pay for my retirement.

I don't use free healthcare, i want my money back = current America.

I can't imagine, all the Canadian up in arms about poor people receiving free healthcare, which is mostly from the middle and above class, due to %
tax. Maybe its the mentality, Canadians do not like to stay on welfare for too long, it is looked at as disgrace, for at least anyone that i know. It
is there to get your foot in the door.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.